Guard Dog

There's nothing wrong with firing people using an executive discretion explicitly stated as a power of the office. However, if it's being used for the reasons reported that it might be used for, I think it important for the public to know it. I agree. The public does deserve to know the reason whatever it is. But they cannot be legally compelled to provide it. And Yes Wals it is perfectly legal and proper. As long as they were not fired for reasons stemming from age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That would be discrimination and obvioulsy was not the case. Janet Reno fired 93 of them because they were Republican apointees. No other reason. Its a rotten thing to do to someone but it is an executive perrogative. As I said, this whole "scandal" in nothing more than politcs. Once again, look at the hipocrisy. Clinton fires 93, not a word said. Bush fires 8 and it's the end of the world. Clinton pardons over 200 mainly on drug charges, not a word said. Bush commutes 1 and it's the end of the world.

But seriously, i would not get too worked up over this one folks. It is simply political theatre. In 7 years the Bush Admin has fired 8 attorneys and pressured 3 others to retire. I am absolutely certain the reasons were political (aren't they always). Over Clintons term Reno fired 93 and no one said a word. The reason is Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General. If he/she want to fire them, that is his/her perrogative. The dems are simply putting on a show in the hopes that the mere hint of impropriety will win a few votes in 2008. Link to source: Bush 8, Clinton 93

now thats multi tasking

both, probably. taks I've never met him. But based on the two career politicians I do know, I would bet he really does not understand.

I'm not sure about that one Wals. Yushaa's first contribution to this board was a four page rant on how much he hates the US, and how much better the world would be if all Americans just went out and shot ourselves. (my words not his). He then tried to give a shred of legitimacy to that by backing it up with "facts" that were either false on their face or presented so out of context they are worthless. Everything GDM posted was correct even if it was not nice. Which brings up the massive double standard around here when it comes to nationality bashing that I for one am getting a little sick of. But that is a topic for another thread.

Game, Set, Match. Tale wins!

Who said that? I did. I just wanted to point out that one should be careful with ones rhetoric, especially when talking about 'the bomb'. Oh man did I walk into that one.

Yushaa, all of those quotes you are throwing up regarding the use of atomic weapons were made after the war. In some cases 15 years after. On Aug 6 1945 all the US knew was that Japan was prepared to fight to the last man/woman/child. So Truman is looking at the casualty and cost estimates of an invasion on one hand, and the Atomic Bomb on the other. What other choice could he make? It is more than a little silly to castigate him after the fact on things he could not have known. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Who said that?

Agreed. Those things usually goes both ways, state + corporate = corporatism --> Fascism. Actually most lobbyists operate on behalf of political groups. If a corporation wants to influence a congressman they usually do it by pretty direct means. For example, Guard Dog Construction Inc wants to build 5000 houses on a plot of land it owns near a military base. But that project requires an easement off of the land owned by the base. The Commanding Officer of the base refuses to grant me easement. Well, I would then go to the US Rep for that district and, at my expense, fly him down to actually see the land. I'd take him golfing, drinks at the country club, fancy dinner all the while trying to persuade him to help me with my problem. It is a LOT like buttering up a girl you want to sleep with. Anyway, he goes back to Washington and puts a rider to grant me an easement in a House Bill on Welfare (or something else that has nothing to do with me). The congressman takes credit for bringing more housing to the district in his next campaign, I make a donation to his campaign in case I ever need another favor. Now a lobbyist operates a little differently. Suppose there is a Bill in the House for the government to sell timber rights to a section of Federal land in Montana. A local environmental group wants to stop it. The would then hire Guard Dog Lobbyists Inc to meet the rep for that district and express to him (over a fancy dinner and drinks the Congressman does not pay for) the views of the group. And of course make promises of campaign support, votes, donations, etc. Political advocacy groups like the ACLU, NRA, PETA, PAY, etc field armies of lobbyists, schmoozing, arm twisting, threatening, and cajoling every congressman nearly every day. There you have it folks, that is how the US government really works. Disillusioned yet? By the way, did you guys know the Lobbyist is a British term? It comes from the days when the British MPs would meet with their constituents in the lobby of the Parliament building. I just read that in the Wiki. Pretty interesting.

Bush is already term limited. I (and Steve) was suggesting term limiting congressmen. But there is now way to keep Presidents from recycling the same cast of political hacks over and over. **** Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff under Reagan, the Sec Defense under George H Bush, and VP now. Rumsfeld was Nixons Secretary of Treasury (briefly), Fords Secretary of Defense, and of course George W Bush's Sec Defense. There are about 15-20 other names I can list right off the top of my head. Congressional Staffs tend to be much smaller and of course tend to be people the Congressmen actually know. People from their home district for example. I favor term limits because as these the years pass and these guys accumulate seniority they accumulate tremendous power that can do real harm to the country and the economy. And they do not set out to do harm believe me. There is no one in Congress who wakes up and thinks, "I think I'll wreck the economy today". The screw up because they have spent their entire lives in "public service" and have no idea how the economy actually works. Case in point, Charles Rangell is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He has been in Congress since 1971. Except for the Army he has never had a real job. But he is in charge of the Committee that determines tax policy (among many other things). He is a big advocate of "Surcharge Taxes" because he does not like to tax "little people". For example, he proposed the spectrum use tax (it's actually called something else, I can't remember it's exact name) on US Cellular carriers. He does this because he would rather tax "greedy cell companies" than tax citizens. But what he does not understand is that taxes on corporations means higher bills for the end user. Cell companies simply pass the cost of the tax to their subscribers as a surcharge in their bill. So the very people he does not want to tax end up paying the tax he created. This is what I mean about these people being so insulated from the real world they cannot even appreciate their own ability to screw it up. There are 435 member of the US House. According to their website there are 237 of them that have served there more than 10 years. More than half. Taks was right. The founders never intended Congress to become a career.

I Hiroshima when I was stationed there. Very sobering. I felt kind of funny being there, US military in a place like that but everyone was nice. In Japan they usually were. I also saw "Suicide Cliffs" in Okinawa where scores of civillians threw themselves off rather than face American occupation. There is a monument there as well.

Why not limit them to one term, or lengthen the terms? Wouldn't that at least help with that problem? I would LOVE to see term limits passed. No more than 3 lifetime terms for a representative, 2 for a senator. The Repubs ran on that in 1994. As soon as they were voted in they dropped that like a hot rock. That is one reason why I seldom vote for republicans. The big problem here is the people in government are so far separated from the people they represent they are almost a different species. Take Ted Kennedy for example. This man has had almost 40 years in elected office. He has never held a job in the private sector yet he is in charge of making policy and law for something he has no knowledge of. It is a real problem. Perfect example. After my failed run for office in 1996 I has talking to Peter Deutsch (Dem). He was gearing up for a 1998 Congressional run (he was elected) and he was asking me about the disparity in military votes between Repubs an Dems. In the 1996 cycle, absentee ballots (which were mostly military) went the repubs way by something like 6-1. So he asked me why the military was so heavily republican. I told him in 1992 when the Dems took Congress and the White House the very first thing the did was vote a pay raise for the Congress and the President. Later that same year they voted down a pay raise for the military. He responded by pointing out that the average pay increase for a lower rank serviceman would only have been $50 per pay period. $50 was nothing why would that upset them. He did not get the principle of the whole thing. Here was a man who had never held a real job, never served in the military and simply could not understand why an extra $100 a month would help a military family scraping by on $16000 per year.

I know they seriously considered demonstrating the bomb to a Japanese ambassador on a deserted island. IIRC that idea was rejected because there was a real fear it was not going to work. If they dropped the bomb on a real target and it was dud the primer charge would be enough to destroy the bomb and no one would know what had happened. Incidently, IIRC the original target on Aug 6 was the Mitsubishi (the main aircraft supplier) factories at Yokohama. But clouds over the drop site made them divert to Hiroshima. Fate is a strange and fickle thing.

Every now and then you post something that is right on the money!

Truman sent a radio message to Japan on Aug 3 1945 giving Japan a surrender or else ultimatum. They refused. Hiroshima was hit. On Aug 8 another communication was made to surrender. They refused. Radio Siapan sent warnings into Nagasaki and the US Army Air Corps dropped leaflets that an attack was imminent. They were ignored. On Aug 9 Nagasaki was attacked. On Aug 10 George Marshall made one more call to surrender and announced that the US would begin systematicaly destroying every Japanese city with no further warning. On Aug 14 Hirohito capitulated. They were given every opportunity to avoid the bombing. Tojo knew the US had the bomb from his agents in Russia. But the Japanese mentality (or at least Tojos) was to fight to the last man/woman/child. And Wals is right. They would have. An armed invasion of Japan would have been a nightmare beyond belief. The majority of the European war was fought in territory hostile to the Germans (France, Italy, Eastern Europe). By the time the allies reached German soil the Wehrmacht was destroyed. The Japanese military was still largely intact. Naval losses prevented them from mobilizing but they would have made a bloody hard fight for every inch of their soil and the Japanese casualties after the invasion would have been in the seven digits. To say nothing of allied casualties which the US would have borne the brunt of. So yes, as tragic as the bombings were, the alternative was worse. Sorry to go OT Wals but it was a point I needed to make. Especially in light of recent threads on this forum.

Well, I was hoping at least one thread on US politics could avoid Iraq. But, as Laozi put it, I was kidding myself. Kinda like cracking a political joke and having nobody get it eh? A lot like that!

Since Yushaa appears to be done with his long winded, just short of insulting, factually dubious, and extremely tiresome rant, will one of the mods please put us out of our misery and close this thread? Fio where are you when we need you?

The teaser for BSG: Razor is up. Link:BSG Razor Also according to Amazon the Season 3 DVD will be released on Sept 3. Not long now.

Pretty cool.

Well, I was hoping at least one thread on US politics could avoid Iraq. But, as Laozi put it, I was kidding myself. Pop, Teeth, explain this one to me. Why is it then that after seven months not only have the Dems not ended the war, it has escalated? And they voted to approve it. Oh yes there have been a number of bills to withdraw the troops. Those are of course worthless because the legislature cannot compel the executive to do anything in this manner. Even if the bills did pass which to date they have not. If the Dems really wanted to end the war all they need to do is vote down even one special appropriations bill that pays for it. No money no war and we would begin an immediate withdrawl. But every one has passed handily. Here is the reason why. And this is important so follow me on this one. If I waved a magic wand and put Obama in the White House today, and left the Dems in control of congress, the war would still not end. The reason is simple. If the US pulls out now Iraq will destabilize. The Shia will slaughter the Sunnis in horrifying numbers and there will be a real civil war. The death toll will be staggaring and in the end, the Shias backed by Iran will prevail. That would give Iran de facto control of 26% of the worlds oil. It would make a potentially dangerous enemy into a real threat. And of course it will create another war to be fought 10 years or so down the road. The dems know this. They are NOT stupid. And they know that history would blame them for pulling out even though Bush started the war. Nobody with half a brain will say that the Iraq war was a good thing or the right thing to do. But however right or wrong it was changes nothing about the current situation. There are two ways it can end, victory (where Iraq is stable and independent of it's neighbors), Or defeat (where it becomes another Iran, or worse Afghanistan pre 2001). I posted right here in thes very forum that the Dems taking control of Congress would not change much. So far, I have been right.

Oh you are not far off there. And you have heard me say as much around here. The pay raise does not piss me off half so much as the tax hike. Or the fact that one follows the other. When I'm getting screwed I'd rather they not be so open about it.

I'm liking this more and more as info comes out about it. Not that there was a chance I would not buy it anyway just for the new modding material alone. I hope they are cooking up a follow up expansion as well. This game desrves at least two.